Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)
Date: 2008-06-27 22:31:55
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> We might have to rearrange the logic a bit to make that happen (I'm not
>> sure what order things get tested in), but a log message does seem like
>> a good idea.  I'd go for logging anytime an orphaned table is seen,
>> and dropping once it's past the anti-wraparound horizon.

> I don't think this requires much of a rearrangement -- see autovacuum.c
> 1921ff.

So everyone is happy with the concept of doing it as above?  If so,
I'll work on it this weekend sometime.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Matthew T. O'ConnorDate: 2008-06-27 23:16:04
Subject: Re: Vacuuming leaked temp tables (once again)
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2008-06-27 22:08:06
Subject: Re: Table inheritance surprise

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group